what that means is that we should not expect that our earlier adoption of social distancing should lead to substantively different outcomes.

some areas like bc seem to be doing some different things right, and those different things seem to have been high impact. unlike quebec and ontario, bc acted swiftly to protect it's seniors facilities, partly because they were the first to experience an outbreak. there are other factors - bc has a lot of mountains and bodies of water that split the province into isolated regions and act as barriers to spread - but a combination of efficient policy with useful geography and what is no doubt just good luck seems to have worked to at least keep the thing away from the vulnerable. so, they reported 14 cases yesterday, which probably just means that they're keeping it away from the weak and the other 1000 new cases in bc just aren't sick enough to seek care. they need to be careful to keep their measures in place, but this should really be a model, at least in terms of how they're treating the elderly. but, isn't that what i said from the start?

if we had focused on the people that needed the attention like the planning documents suggested, and that only bonnie henry seems to have actually read, we'd be in the same situation bc is in - where there is no doubt still substantial spread, but very low mortality as a result of it.